The Yes-Man Is Your Enemy, But Your Friend Will Argue With You

These “fair weather friends,” as Rosner dubs them, hold Israel to a standard to which they do not hold other countries—and then claim they do so out of commonality and brotherhood. Light unto the nations and all that. But of course the act of separating yourself from your brethren by being their harshest critics is almost the polar opposite of true familial behavior…

The strange thing about these reactions is that they equate friendship and support with uncritical endorsement of bad behavior. To expect better behavior from a government with which one has greater sympathy is somehow “disingenuous,” as Podhoretz says, but it actually makes much less sense to hold reviled governments to a higher standard of conduct. Demanding better behavior from a government takes for granted that one thinks that such behavior is remotely possible, and that acknowledges that the government and the people it represents can be better than they currently are. Most American critics of Israeli government behavior must believe at some level that a change in that behavior for the better is still possible, or else they wouldn’t bother trying to appeal to Israelis in terms of their own traditions and values.

IhaveoftencitedtheRussian proverb that Solzhenitsyn used, “The yes-man is your enemy, but your friend will argue with you.” The meaning of this proverb can be misunderstood, since it can be misinterpreted to mean that one should constantly be quarreling with one’s own friends, but it is fairly clear to anyone paying attention. Indulging a friend in his worst, most self-destructive behavior by endorsing whatever he says and does and making excuses for him contributes to the friend’s ruin and can have the same effect as seeking his downfall, and rebuking him when he goes awry helps to protect him against his own bad judgment. The main mistake that Rosner and Podhoretz make, unsurprisingly, is that they consider otherwise sympathetic critics to be “fair-weather” friends when these are potentially some of the best friends that Israelis have precisely because they don’t simply back whatever the Israeli government happens to do. Considering the stifling of dissent inside Israel that has been taking place lately, that would seem to be all the more valuable. But then one would have to understand the value of dissent against reckless and hawkish policies to appreciate that, and naturally Podhoretz doesn’t.

The odd thing about these complaints is that there is less sympathy for Israel around the world now than at almost any time that I can remember in the last twenty years. One would think that “pro-Israel” hawkish Americans and Israelis would be more appreciative of the sympathizers that Israel does have, including the critical ones, but instead the latter are treated dismissively and berated for having the temerity to express their concern. As this rate, there will continue to be fewer sympathizers as it becomes clear that friendly criticism is just falling on deaf ears.

That’s a great proverb, which aptly demonstrates the true character of love. “Yes-men” are users; their relationships are instrumental. True friendship is a form of love, which desires and encourages the Good for another.

As you’ve noted, those criticizing Israel are its true friends, because they recognize its increasingly fascist politics as a threat to its own well-being.

Seeing Israel as a do-no-wrong monolith does injustice to the vigorous political debate that takes place within it. While on the question of Protective Edge specifically, (Jewish) Israelis overwhelmingly (but far from unanimously) support(ed?) the operation, internal debate rages with respect to settlements and Palestinian national aspirations. And yes, let’s face it, there are those within Israel, specifically certain settlers – often driven by theocratic and/or racist considerations, and the state apparatus that enables them, are deserving of scorn as anathema to American and Jewish values.